[npizzolato]

The example breaks down with torrenting because it introduces a third option. For the no-name artist,

    a) Some people would pay $100,000 and get the painting.
    b) Some people would think $100,000 is ridiculous, not pay, and not get the painting.
    c) Some people would copy/steal/whatever the painting, and get the painting for $0.

Is it really surprising that many people choose c? Those people might say they'd actually pay for it if it was $10 instead, and some of them might be telling the truth, but I think many people would still choose option c. $0 is hard to pass up.

[Nadya]

Some Audi S6 would be sold for $5,000 by desperate salespeople who need to get it off the lot. I just left it out because option A isn't all that realistic in either scenario.

Option "D" (offering to pay, taking for free) comes with knowing that the artist might not be able to support themselves to make more. I've always supported artists/studios I want to see create more art and I think any adult pirating understands the economy enough to know this - and most teenagers understand it on some level (but also understandbly aren't usually made of money).

One could also argue that increased exposure is a form of indirect profit. If 3,000,000 people steal a copy of the painting someone might be willing to buy that painting for $100,000 for bragging rights. Hey guys, I own the original painting! This exposure could increase their potential sales.

The issue of pirates is never black and white. Frankly, the music industry would never see $0.01 from me if I couldn't pirate/listen to free on YT and decide "I wish to support this artist and hopefully hear a new album from them in the future."

I know I'm not the only person who would never spend a single penny otherwise.

[caskance]

What do you do for a living? Write software? Please do it for free. Think of all the exposure you'll get!